This is, of course, the key question. And one of the reasons I've not abandoned Starmer yet - I've just grown more and more critical - is there is a different way of interpreting what's been going on.

Is Starmer in fact planning various phases during this Parliament? https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1355580735160201221

Phase 1: reach out to Red Wall, rebuild trust among British Jews, show statesmanship by mostly supporting the government during an unprecedented ongoing crisis

Phase 2: once we're on the other side of the pandemic, become more critical of the government (public inquiry?)

Phase 3: then build up a policy platform in what will be a significantly changed world compared with before the pandemic.

A further reason why milquetoast centrism will not cut it is if Sunak becomes Tory leader. Because he'll peel off affluent liberals.

I'd be pretty shocked if Starmer himself doesn't realise that. I'd also remind people of how Cameron's strategy changed more or less 100% once Blair had gone and Brown replaced him.

Starmer is extraordinarily adept at keeping people guessing, never revealing his hand. Naturally, that encourages the most cynical interpretations - but there's also a much more benign one. We just don't know yet.

However, I'm much more concerned about those around him. The Evans, Akehursts and Reeves of this world. I don't think any of them get it at all; I think they really believe that the left are the problem, and that same old status quo is some kind of answer.

It's not in any way.

Why has Corbyn been treated in such a grotesquely shabby way?

1. Because the narrative about Labour antisemitism is all-encompassing and all-powerful, and impossible to challenge without re-opening the same can of worms all over again.

2. Because there's another bullshit narrative which was frighteningly successful: about Momentum, the left, and Corbyn supporters. Like they were some 'danger' or something.

Both narratives make me want to puke.

And both narratives will be exposed if the Forde Inquiry ever reports.

I'm waiting to see if Starmer and Labour offer some sort of olive branch to the left. What's been going on is antidemocratic and completely unacceptable.

But the general public really couldn't give two hoots about Labour party minutiae - nor should it. And lost among the fury on here when Corbyn had the whip removed is that: the electorate probably blames Corbyn for Labour disunity, not Starmer.

Why? Narratives, again. That's how hard this all is. So much so that even if Corbyn wins his court case, I think the public will STILL blame him.

Sometimes political parties do have to chase narratives. But the question is whether Starmer can shape a new, bold, positive one.

So far, he absolutely has not. But that doesn't mean he won't.

And "when someone shows you who they are, believe them" doesn't cut it. Not when there's still so long in this Parliament to go; and not when Starmer showed Doreen Lawrence who he was, and she believed him.